This is the very essence of the difference that should exist between a President and a King. From Federalist 69:
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.
The failure of the Republican party to support this kind of check on Presidential power is why we’re having this crisis now.
UNLESS they rule AGAINST Working Class Bailouts. THEN the Courts SHOULD be Listened to!
“Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”
– Richard Nixon, 1977.
You’ve had 47 years to do something about this, to be able to hold your leaders accountable, and apparently it wasn’t worth the effort.
I guess the upside is you won’t have to worry about all that wasteful election spending any more. 👍
You don’t understand (or maybe you do but aren’t saying it). The Nixon scandal is what started the modern shitshow as we know it. Nixon’s supporters would be royally pissed that there was no specific media apparatus to fully support Nixon and his shit. They would go on to fight to repeal the fairness doctrine and to start Fox News and the modern propaganda media as we know it.
BTW, a few years ago (during Trump’s first administration or a bit after) they even SAID ‘when the president does it , it isn’t not illegal’ or some slight word difference as a way of signalling their ultimate victory in trying to do what they wanted to have happened during Nixon’s scandals.
If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” Vice President J. D. Vance posted on X yesterday morning. “If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
Dude is just underlining scopes. Nothing burger here
Now, Vance was not quite making an unconditional vow to ignore a court order.
He was making no vows. Stating the scope of practice is not illegal in any way
Rather, he was stepping right up to the line.
By explaining who has what scope? Wow stretch much?
Obviously, judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,
Yes that’s literally the guys point.
but determining whether orders are legitimate is the very question the courts must decide.
Which was never in discussion?
People if you want to freak out about everything be my guest, but if this is what is going to make you flip the fuck out, geez.
The perma stun is real. And it proceeds at pace
“I think the tweet, taken on its own terms, is empty because it refers to the ‘legitimate powers’ of the executive. And the whole question in these cases is whether the executive is acting legitimately or not,” Greene told NBC News.
“He has some cover in that sense,” Greene added, referring to Vance. “He hasn’t promised unlawful behavior.”
Rick Pildes, a professor at New York University’s Law School, also highlighted Vance’s use of the words “legitimate powers” in his post but pointed out that the judiciary is the branch with the power to decide what a president can “legitimately” do or not do.
“Under the rule of law and the Constitution, it is the courts that determine whether some use of the executive power is lawful or not. That is the critical point,” Pildes said via email.
“The concern is that the vice president’s statement could be taken to suggest that the Executive Branch is prepared to refuse to comply with a court order based on the president’s own view that he has a power that the courts have concluded he does not,” he added. “A president who orders his officials not to comply with court orders would be creating a constitutional crisis.”
Also note,
It’s not the first time Vance has floated defying court orders.
Greene pointed out that others in Trump’s orbit, including Musk, have floated ignoring court orders.
On Saturday, Musk reposted a post on X from a user who wrote, “I don’t like the precedent it sets when you defy a judicial ruling, but I’m just wondering what other options are these judges leaving us.”
I think it’s a series of microaggressions; on their own, each comment is seemingly innocent, and every response appears to be an overreaction. But their comments put together paint a larger picture. I think this is part of the strategy - “Look at these emotional people, panicking at nothing!” as they slowly overwhelm and erode their checks and balances.
It’s important not to become emotionally overwhelmed, and not to jump to conclusions. I definitely see the tendency to doom-scroll and panic in people right now - I do it myself sometimes as much as I try not to. But I’m thankful for the journalists and scholars that raise alarms, because if people don’t know what’s happening, how will anyone be held accountable?
Da fuck? Judges have the power to check the executive. Ever read Marbury v madison?
This dumbass right wing analysis is why we are falling down the pit of fascism right now.
If trump defies a court order, that’s a constitutional crises and it is every americans duty to take up arms to stop tyranny.
